Share this

Timeline

Holy Shroud, Mysterious Relic

Dan Graves, MSL

Clement VII, one of the rival popes of the fourteenth century, after
first trying to hush up those who would expose the shroud of Turin,
signed papers declaring it a fraud. Supposedly, the artist who painted
it acknowledged it as a forgery. According to contemporary documents,
certain men, for hire, had pretended the "relic" cured them,
giving it a reputation, because the forgers desired to make money off
it. At that time Bishop Pierre D'Arcis excommunicated those who showed
it, but they were raking in so much money they found ways to get around
his decision.

The Dukes of Savoy guarded the lucrative object. In 1502 the current
Duke requested and obtained papal permission to build a chapel to
exhibit the "holy" relic. The Sainte Chapelle of the Holy
Shroud was officially completed on this day, June 11,
1502. With great fanfare the Shroud was exhibited and then locked
away. Pope Julius II established a feast and mass for the shroud.
Countless pilgrims visited the site.

The shroud was reputed to have marvelous powers of protecting people.
It could not, however, protect itself, and on December 4, 1532, its
chapel caught fire. Brave individuals rushed in to rescue the cloth
which had supposedly covered Christ in his burial. Before they could
reach it, silver had melted and scorched the cloth and even burnt holes
through it.

When the Dukes of Savoy transferred their headquarters to Turin, the
shroud went with them, and it is as the Shroud of Turin that it is best
known. A black marble chapel was built for it there.

The shroud was first photographed by Secondo Pia. He was astonished
when he beheld the negative from his camera. It had reversed the
negative image of the shroud and made it look lifelike. He claims he
nearly dropped the photograph. This led to claims that the work must be
an authentic negative image somehow made by the radiance of Christ at
his resurrection.

More than one scientific committee studied the relic. The scientific
conclusion, which it must be emphasized is by no means unanimous, is
that the shroud is indeed a forgery, painted in tempera. Bits of paint
were found on the cloth. The blood looks red; real blood turns brown or
black. The tempera technique has been reproduced by several modern
artists who claim to have created shroud-like "negatives"
using only the materials available to the forgers of the 14th
century.

Most conclusive of all were three carbon dating tests done by
separate laboratories which first carefully cleaned off the samples. The
church announced that the results placed the shroud's earliest possible
date at 1,000 AD and most probable date between 1260 and 1390, the very
time period in which the shroud had emerged into human view. One of the
arguments for the shroud's authenticity was that pollens were found on
it which originate only in the Mid East. Experts replied that the
microscopic power used was insufficient to resolve the grains which
could have been of several types found outside the holy land. Bishop
D'Arcis' warnings and Clement's declaration appear to have been
vindicated by modern technology, but the issue remains hotly contested
and new arguments and tests are constantly suggested by each side.